In re Marcos B. CA4/3
153 Cal. Rptr. 3d 778
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Marcos B. is a 15-year-old ward adjudicated under Welfare and Institutions Code 602 for drug offenses, with crimes including possession for sale and possession of narcotics and controlled substances.
- The case largely depended on Santa Ana Officer Slayton’s in-field observations of a narcotics hand-to-hand transaction, including a search of a PVC pipe and a bag containing drugs.
- An in camera hearing held to decide whether Slayton’s surveillance location was privileged under Evidence Code 1040 resulted in a ruling that the location was not material to 1042.
- Defense sought access to Slayton’s surveillance location to test credibility and cross-examine him; the court limited inquiry to obstructions but withheld the exact location.
- The appellate court reversed, finding no proper in camera process and that the location could be material, undermining Marcos’ due process and cross-examination rights.
- The court held the privilege was abused and the location was material, reversing the order finding the petition true and remanding for further proceedings
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the surveillance location was privileged under 1040. | Marcos argues location is privileged; prosecution bears burden to show necessity of secrecy. | Marcos contends privilege was improperly sustained and process deficient. | Privilege abused; location not properly sustained. |
| Whether the surveillance location was material information under 1042. | Slayton’s location is essential to test reliability and credibility. | Location not material due to lack of corroborating evidence. | Location material; disclosure required for fair cross-examination. |
| Whether the in camera proceedings violated due process by excluding Marcos from the process. | Ex parte in camera hearing deprived Marcos of participation. | Hearing adequate to assess privilege under 1040. | Due process violation found; process inadequate. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Gionis, 9 Cal.4th 1196 (Cal. 1995) (burden of showing evidence within privilege; due process in privilege rulings)
- People v. Montgomery, 205 Cal.App.3d 1011 (Cal. App. 1988) (surveillance location privilege framework and need for voir dire on privilege)
- People v. Walker, 230 Cal.App.3d 230 (Cal. App. 1991) (corroboration required to render surveillance location immaterial)
- In re Sergio M., 13 Cal.App.4th 809 (Cal. App. 1993) (corroboration of observing officer’s testimony varies by case)
- People v. Haider, 34 Cal.App.4th 661 (Cal. App. 1995) (independent corroboration of observations affects materiality)
- People v. Lewis, 172 Cal.App.4th 1426 (Cal. App. 2009) (surveillance location not material if corroboration supports officer's observations)
- People v. Garza, 32 Cal.App.4th 148 (Cal. App. 1995) (corroboration context for surveillance testimony)
- Szeto v. California, 29 Cal.3d 20 (Cal. 1981) (corroboration standard for admissibility of accomplice testimony)
- People v. Rodrigues, 8 Cal.4th 1060 (Cal. 1994) (definition of corroboration value in linking defendant to crime)
- McDermott v. State, 28 Cal.4th 946 (Cal. 2002) (corroboration standard (general principle referenced))